Running Apps From Your Car's Dashboard 171
An anonymous reader writes "I guess is was inevitable, now that BMW is letting you view and make tweets from behind the wheel, but is it really a good idea to let people run smartphone apps from their dashboard monitor? I guess for navigation you could run your favorite map-app there, but there is nothing to stop people from running other apps on their dashboard too. It might be better than texting from the handset, but I'm not sure I want people playing Angry Birds while they drive."
Boston (Score:5, Funny)
>> I'm not sure I want people playing Angry Birds while they drive
Here in Boston, we use the same techniques for both.
Re:Boston (Score:4, Funny)
I'd be more worried about people playing Drunk Man. Imagine the story you tell to the police for swerving all over the road.
Re: (Score:3)
I made several multiweek trips to the Boston area for work over the years. Everytime I came back to So Cal people noticed I was driving more aggressively for a while afterward.
Re: (Score:2)
Angry Birds (Score:5, Funny)
Could lead to playing Angry Cars inadvertently.
Does anyone else not like the idea of touch... (Score:5, Insightful)
...enabled in car systems?
Until recently, I had no touchscreens in my car, but once I got my new shiny smartphone, it had a rather cool "Car mode", where it made all the buttons large and easy to press, etc...
However nice it was in theory, I found that once I mounted it on my dash, it became a right PITA to operate while driving. While complex things (like setting up the maps) would make sense to stop at the side and fiddle with, other things (like setting the volume, or switching playlists/songs) shouldn't.
The biggest annoyance was the fact that operating the touchscreen required me to look at it, even for simple things like the volume control or music switching. I could operate all the major functions of my old car radio without even looking at it, it was well laid out, and buttons were different shapes and sizes, really easy to learn.
I really think touchscreens are not ready for car use just yet, at least until they develop some overlay that can change its tactile feedback. Anything that requires you to look at it to operate should have no place in the dashboard IMO (if it was mounted only on the passenger side out of reach of the driver, that would be good as well, but then I suspect some people would just lean over while hurtling down the motorway).
I don't know, I feel this will just increase the number of accidents due to people looking at the screen in order to find the song they want, or to tweet or something else... and as someone who has to share the roads with them, it is somewhat of a worry.... :/
Re:Does anyone else not like the idea of touch... (Score:5, Insightful)
Amen - so much so that I voted with my cash by avoiding the 2011 Holden and buying a 2010 second hand instead. The 2011 model's greatest selling point (according to the ads) is the "iQ" touchscreen interface - making them Holden's "smartest" cars yet. I hired one for a few days and found it a grand step backwards. With no tactic feedback it was almost impossible to operate while driving. You basically had to have a passenger, or pull over to change the radio station.
The ideal user interface for car entertainment/information devices has already been invented. It's a button for binary operations and a knob for analog operations. It's incredibly clever because get this - you can feel it!
Just because a touchscreen is a wonderful interface for a mobile phone doesn't mean everything else in your life will get better with one.
Re:Does anyone else not like the idea of touch... (Score:5, Insightful)
I really think touchscreens are not ready for car use just yet, at least until they develop some overlay that can change its tactile feedback. Anything that requires you to look at it to operate should have no place in the dashboard IMO (if it was mounted only on the passenger side out of reach of the driver, that would be good as well, but then I suspect some people would just lean over while hurtling down the motorway).
You've hit upon something that comes under the study of ergonomics. Tactile feedback matters. It's the reason why the start button on a CNC machine, a round, recessed, and sometimes molly-guarded green button looks and functions differently than the emergency stop button, which is a big, fat, red mushroom that you can hit with the back of your hand which then requires a twist to physically reset it once pressed. You *can* tell the difference between the two by touch alone. Because having to actually look may mean the difference between someone living or dying.
Sure. Touchscreens look cool and all that, but for a lot of things they are less than useless.
If you cannot operate something on the dashboard of a car with gloves and not looking, it's not designed right.
(The thing about emergency stop buttons brings me to my pet peeve that a missile launch button in bad science fiction movies is always a big, red, real-life estop button instead of a molly-guarded toggle switch or something actually more realistic. Also, with all the shiny touchscreens using the LCARS interface on Star Trek series and movies, how come we never see any janitorial staff keeping these things clean and gleaming?)
--
BMO
Re:Does anyone else not like the idea of touch... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've come to realize that while in certain use cases, touch screens are great (basically any general computing situation where the user chooses apps). They are only useful in a small minority of industrial design scenarios.
Industrial design engineers are increasingly using lcd+touchscreen as a kludge because they lack the intellect to fully step back and imagine the full breath of use cases for a device at the beginning of a project. The only industrial design use case where lcd+touchscreen belongs is where an image or similar visual media need to be manipulated by panning, zooming, or placing indicators by hand or finger. If you need a touchscreen to operate functions of an automobile while driving, you have failed as an engineer.
Re: (Score:2)
It's partly the "kewl" factor but partly cost - mechanical buttons and knobs are seen as redundant if you've already got a touchscreen.
It's absolute nonsense, as someone else pointed out. Failure to to a proper use case analysis probably.
Re: (Score:2)
My apologies for the double post... but I would hope that by the 24th century we are properly using hydrophobic / oleophobic / self cleaning substrates for touchscreens. Titanium dioxide and micro texturing have all but solved that problem here in the 21st century when manufacturers choose to implement them.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, with all the shiny touchscreens using the LCARS interface on Star Trek series and movies, how come we never see any janitorial staff keeping these things clean and gleaming?
Why would we? We never see washrooms or crew going to/from them, but I'm pretty sure they're on the ship, too.
(By contrast, off the top of my head I can think of two scenes from Babylon 5 where they not only show characters cleaning up in a washroom, but are pivotal in setting up part of the plot, too).
How are consoles cleaned on modern military craft? I'm sure every station must get regular wipedowns. We never see that in the movies either. And as aaronb noted, there's probably a tech reason for the consol
Re: (Score:3)
Having been on the receiving end of a permanently life changing incident, with someone paying more attention to their mobile phone than the colour traffic, I whole heartedly agree. Any distractions that have nothing to do with driving that can be restricted should be restricted. Basically a lot of these additional features should simply cease to function once the vehicle is in motion, activate with parking brake, then adjust, once parking brake off the device is off.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, good to hear it :) I'm planning on building a PC into my car eventually (once I iron out all the other problems with it), and I figured it would have both a touchscreen and some tactile buttons on the centre console.
Have you used any of these systems? I'd really be interested to see how modern cars dealt with this problem and what button interfaces they used, might get some ideas from them :D
Re: (Score:2)
Oh cool! :D
No, I intend to have no buttons on the dashboard. My DB looks like this: http://c767170.r70.cf2.rackcdn.com/R20924.jpg [rackcdn.com]
There is a nice rectangular hole in the middle, where the centre speaker would go (optional extra). In my case that is an empty cavity, and would make an excellent place for a LCD screen.
At the moment I'm debating whether to make it a touch screen or not, but if I do make it touch sensitive, it would be rarely used (only instead of a keyboard, e.g. if I want to type in an addres
It'd need a slight upgrade (Score:2)
Oh the irony (Score:3)
I'm waiting to see how many posts pile up about voice recognition being the way to go in automobiles. It is arguably a better alternative to controlling multimedia functions in a car, definitely better than anything touch screen based. Frankly I wish the legislators would wise up and ban all touch input built into cars going forward. It is a disaster. Hard buttons are the safest way to control auxiliary functions in an automobile. I am being a bit hypocritical though, as I have considered integrating a really cheap Android tablet into my car for GPS and music. I also don't see there being a chance for any kind of ban given the propensity of GPS to use touch input.
Really, their just need to be better UI design guidelines for automotive use. Car mode on Android is alright, but still offers too much for the average mind to scan and pick from. I always thought the UI styles used in most GPS units was best, never really more than 2-4 choices at a time on the screen.
I could see a TTS system reading feeds from twitter, facebook, rss, etcetera being useful and cool even if I would never use it. Get in the car, get on the morning commute and get your /. feed instead of AM talk radio I suppose.
I joke about voice recognition and commands because as many here are aware, vocalization takes 80% of the average person's brain processing power. That is why so many people can't talk on the phone and drive (besides the fact that they are self-centered, spoiled a-holes).
Re: (Score:2)
With a little luck, somebody will eventually come up with a way to interface one of Sony's old control sticks to an Android phone & configure it for both Android & App control. They rocked, because once you learned how it worked, you could literally control almost everything with one hand by feel alone.
That's the #1 Ultimate Universal Suck of touchscreens - you have to actively look at them and focus most of your attention on using them. There's a lot to be said for controls that you can grab &
Cluster (Score:2)
I'm almost certain (Score:3)
that the result will be similar to those in the user images for this product:
http://www.amazon.com/Wheelmate-Laptop-Steering-Wheel-Desk/dp/B000IZGIA8 [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
My hat is off to you sir.
The 614 reviews are a nice touch.
Re: (Score:2)
No problem (Score:2)
I guess it all depends how well you multitask. For example I'm driving right now and playing Angry Birds while typing this message. I really don
NO CARRIER
Re: (Score:2)
Illegal here (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live (Pennsylvania, USA) using a phone for anything except a GPS while driving is illegal. If course it's impossible for a police officer to prove you were doing something else so the law is generally unenforceable, but it made some people somewhere feel good. Apparently there's still no law against being a complete idiot while driving, but that seems to be everywhere.
Actually, in PA, the police just need to see you holding the phone in your hand while driving. At that point, it is up to you explain why the gps requires the phone to be next to your ear.
Re: (Score:2)
Making calls falls under "uses other than GPS", cretin.
Also, most cop cars carry cameras these days.
brakes.sys has caused a system error (Score:2)
brakes.sys has caused a system error please hold start to reboot.
Will these apps review your typing too? (Score:2)
I guess is was inevitable,...
Was this submission proofread while driving? Or ever?
BMW Apps (Score:4, Insightful)
- Reading tweets/Facebook posts (and with a flick of the iDrive, it will read the tweet out to you)
- Posting one of five/six canned tweets/Facebook status messages (e.g., "It's xx outside, and I'm driving my BMW!") - so you aren't trying to compose a message while you drive
- Web radio
- Looking at your calendar/address book
- News RSS feeds
So it has the capacity to be dangerously distracting, but BMW's implementation is limited enough that it's not. Of course, the driver could still be distracted if they're reading Facebook while they're driving, but if they're going to do that, they would do that anyway with their smartphone in their hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Does someone that is driving a vehicle really need to be tweeting or updating their facebook status to "I'm driving my BMW" ?
Maybe they should be more concentrated on what they are doing and what is going on around them rather than moronic social network updates.
Re: (Score:2)
As an owner of a BMW with this function, I have to say that apart from the first two days when I owned the car, I have never used any of this functionality. Trust me, the novelty wears off really quickly.
I do like the web radio functions though... that is pretty cool. Though truthfully if I am that desperate to read my Facebook/Twitter feeds then I'm far more likely to find a coffee shop to stop at and do it there where I can sip a cappuccino and actually compose meaningful replies.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people who see that their cars support such functions directly do this will think it must be all right do this whereas the same people might not do it if their car didn't support it directly and they had to pull out their handset.
Re: (Score:2)
Most sat navs prevent you using the screen while the car is moving. You can only look at the display. It seems like all they need to do is prevent you reading/writing stuff while the car is moving, maybe reading it out instead.
So what happens.... (Score:2)
So what happens when federal and/or state lawmakers ban using cell phones for talking and texting all together while driving. Will these embeded smartphone type of displays need to be disabled by the manufacturer?
Where is Ralph Nader when you need him? (Score:2)
This is such a stupendously dangerous idea, bound to cause untold carnage, that we really need a Ralph Nader to start some class-action lawsuits so the idiots who come up with ideas like "in-car infotainment systems" can be driven to bankruptcy.
VNC server default or installable on all Androids? (Score:2)
This solution seems to imply that all Androids and Blackberries can actually export their screen using VNC, even to displays of different resolution than their own.
Can they, out of the box?
Joe Avg. Upmarket BMW Buyer does not seem the most likely tinkerer to root his phone (or even delve into e.g
Re:Why should you have a say? (Score:5, Insightful)
Where would the police come in here?
Yes, in the Wild Wild West, everybody could do whatever the hell they wanted in the privacy of their own automobile while driving down the public roads. However, in the real world, we should probably think this through a little bit.
But I'm not sure that an article whose first paragraph contained the phrase 'Smartphone-centric in-vehicle infotainment (IVI) systems are the next step in mobile convenience' is the place to start.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what driver's also shouldn't do? Mess with the radio, change the A/C setting, reach into the glove box, read a book, use the rear seat cupholder....
For a place where lots of people say we should carpool more, a whole lot of you seem to have forgotten about a little thing called PASSENGERS.
Not every feature on a vehicle is meant to be operated by the driver while it is moving.
Re:Why should you have a say? (Score:5, Insightful)
So explain to me why a passenger would need to have their smartphone in hand and have the application for it appear on the dash, rather than just looking at it in their hand, that doesn't involve the driver.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a group of people want a display they can all see, with a wireless control mechanism... why, why, why?
Everyone here complains about the "$foo on a computer" patent nonsense, but every time i see "$foo in a car" articles they are full of people shouting about mutilated accident victim porn.
Look, I get it, drivers shouldn't be messing around while they are driving. I agree that far. But that doesn't mean the passengers have to cower in silence for fear of creating a distraction. I would think if the
Re:Why should you have a say? (Score:5, Insightful)
So your situation is to have the passengers display entertainment on the dash board for everyone to see when they could just use the built in displays in the head rests for the back and again the actual smartphone for the person in shotgun..
I understand the "passenger" argument, and i do believe that passengers have a responsibly not to create a distraction.
As for your comment on self driving cars, if you are in a self driving car, then you are all passengers, a computer is the driver, and i wouldn't want the computer distracted beyond it's ability to operate the vehicle.. if you want to "test the waters for socially enabled in car entertainment" that effects the current meat space driver/operator wait till you have the self driving cars so you can let them be entertained by i while the computer drives the car, but it would be unwise to do it before hand.
If you really want to watch a movie on your way to work, do it in a manner where you aren't the one in control of a 3000lbs object traveling at 50 mph while watching the movie.
Re: (Score:2)
the point of putting your smartphone platform on the car's dash is that you can leverage the developer base and existing software that is already developed. The entertainment software on a car is pretty primitive compared to what you have on your phone, so there's no real reason not to put it there. If you have a problem with putting iOS on a car's dashboard, you've probably got a problem with running the existing software there anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Good job on not even attempting to post an answer to my post.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So explain to me why a passenger would need to have their smartphone in hand and have the application for it appear on the dash, rather than just looking at it in their hand, that doesn't involve the driver.
Because innovations like this can drive sales. ...and that, I think. is as far as it goes, honestly and in all candor.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really consider this "innovation"?? this is nothing more than putting shiny things in places where they will cause more harm than good.
While i agree that it will drive car sales, they really should be held accountable for what they are doing. Selling AR15s with full auto by default would increase gun sales but we don't let them do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I fully agree - i think it's been a while since I've seen any advertisement that had anything to do with the product in a real world usage situation.
As far as i'm concerned the general population (at least in the US) has become ignorant and dependent on instant gratification.
Re: (Score:2)
So I can drink beer now? (Score:5, Interesting)
By your logic I should be allowed to get shitfaced drunk while driving and society gets no say unless I screw up.
Mind you I personally have no problem with this, I've known people that are safer drivers blacked-out drunk than some people are stone sober. They rarely get caught because they don't give off any "warning signs" no weaving, skipping stop signs, etc. But if we go that route lets start actually enforcing reckless driving laws with severe penalties. If you can't stay in your lane and obey the traffic laws what does it matter if it's because you're drunk, texting, or trying to break up a fight between the kids? Your vehicle is just as big a threat either way.
"Infotainment"? Well that's a new one (Score:2)
I'm for personal responsibility, not necessarily for government stepping in beyond the limits of basic law, if to enforce a sense of political responsibility - I think that it sets a bad precedent for government, to say the least.
I find myself distracted at the original occurrence of the word, "Infotainment" however. What a shiny.....
Re: (Score:2)
Not a lot of autos in the Wild Wild West. Giant fucking mechanical spiders, but not many autos.
Re:Why should you have a say? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do you think what you want people do to with their cars is any of your business, as long as it doesn't involve hurting you or someone else?
Punish them if they do something stupid and cause a traffic accident... let them work out what they're allowed to do with their insurance company that may have to pay for the consequences, but how did we get to the point where joe anonymous may get a say via the police over what software people are allowed to run?
Because frequently it *does* involve hurting someone else: it's called a fatal car accident, where the person who wasn't playing Angry Birds dies. The person wrecklessly driving will of course face all kinds of consequences from the police/courts/insurance company for the accident (and quite possibly manslaughter charges on top of it), but that doesn't bring the victim back to life.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Recklessly, not wrecklessly. They've definitely caused a car wreck.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Would this person's prosecution for causing an accident resulting in death deter other people from behaving similarly?
Do you really think that setting up regulations to ban or approve applications that are allowed to run on a computer would deter someone more than the possibility of causing death, either theirs or others? Have you thought through the enforcement regime required to ensure people don't have "unapproved" applications loaded on their car computer? Are we talking an annual inspection of their da
Re: (Score:3)
Have people really lost sight of liberty so much?
Yes. They get too emotional about casualties in the name of freedom and opt to restrict what other people are able to do. They cannot handle even a single loss, and they don't even realize that their 'solutions' will often not even solve the problem.
This is why some people support the TSA and the Patriot Act. "We must restrict everyone's rights in exchange for a bit of safety." It's just that there are different things that they want to sacrifice freedom for. In some cases, it's terrorism (restricting peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Have people really lost sight of liberty so much?
Yes. They get too emotional about casualties in the name of freedom and opt to restrict what other people are able to do. They cannot handle even a single loss, and they don't even realize that their 'solutions' will often not even solve the problem.
This is why some people support the TSA and the Patriot Act. "We must restrict everyone's rights in exchange for a bit of safety." It's just that there are different things that they want to sacrifice freedom for. In some cases, it's terrorism (restricting people's rights to "stop the terrorists" doesn't seem popular here). In some cases, it's children (I've noticed this is more popular here, especially when it comes to issues like child porn).
Comparing the negative response to the idea of installing Twitter in a car to the hysterical comparison of such negative responses to the support of the TSA and the Patriot Act and strongly implying support of totalitarianism? Slashdot's all well and normal then, the cute little hippy libertarian tykes.
Fucking ridiculous.
I have a solution for you (Score:3)
Make the auto manufacturer liable if they made provisions for the driver to be able to display to the driver applications not related to operation of the vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why should you have a say? (Score:4, Interesting)
How about we skip all that and just hold people responsible for their actual actions that actually harm others, instead of creating a police and nanny state because we're afraid someone may misuse their freedom in some minor way "we" don't approve of?
But how to determine their 'actual action'? Would you be ok with data recorders that log all the actions, so we can hold them responsible? Or do you just want to throw up your hands and say "Oh, there's no way to know, we have to trust what they tell us because they wouldn't lie."
And should we do the same for everyone else? Trust truck drivers (who get paid by the mile) to take long, relaxing rests cross-country instead of being wired on white crosses? Trust school bus drivers not to drink too much from the bottle they keep beneath the seat? Trust that dump truck driver not to get distracted by the TV he's got propped up on his dash?
Personally, I'd rather have neither the data recorder nor the game-boy dashboard. But I do know that if the driver has access to that game-boy, some of them will be using it. Some of them are already texting, reading, drinking coffee, chatting on the phone, applying makeup, or all of the above, we know that some of them will be playing Angry Birds. And these are people who can barely walk and chew gum at the same time.
I'm sure that extra "freedom" is worth your life (and that of your children, given that they're from your gene pool). But, you know, after you've been squished into a twisted ball of metal and shredded meat, whether the perp is "held responsible" isn't going to be real important to you.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why should you have a say? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would this person's prosecution for causing an accident resulting in death deter other people from behaving similarly?
Probably not, but that's not the point.
Do you really think that setting up regulations to ban or approve applications that are allowed to run on a computer would deter someone more than the possibility of causing death, either theirs or others?
Yes, I do. If given the opportunity to play Angry Birds on the dashboard, many will opt to do it, because the barrier to entry is nonexistent. People generally believe that the worst won't happen to them, and that it'd be alright because the foreseen circumstances are just fine. However, it is inherently impossible to account for unforeseen circumstances. These circumstances can, in many cases, be avoided with quick reflexes and complete attention on the road, but trying to line up the perfect shot would inherently prohibit one from realizing the danger before it's too late.
Have you thought through the enforcement regime required to ensure people don't have "unapproved" applications loaded on their car computer?
Yes, and it's called "what's worked for the past century: don't run apps on your dashboard at all". Wanna add a trip computer or GPS stats on there? Fine, I'm down with that. But there's no conceivable reason to add games to a dashboard as it does nothing whatsoever to provide better performance to the vehicle or the driver. Just because something is possible doesn't make it a good idea.
Are we talking an annual inspection of their data, or what, you must be a government approved vehicle computer system or application provider?
No, we are talking a dashboard that doesn't run apps.
What's next, regulations about the types of toilet paper, flushing mechanisms or light bulbs "we" approve of? Ridiculous, right?
Redacto ad absurdum much? I'm pretty sure that there are some form of regulations in place to limit the possibility of making toilet paper out of fiberglass or light bulbs out of nuclear waste, because that's the level of absurdity this line requires to make it work.
How about, mind your own damn business until it actually affects you?
My best friend lost her mom in a car accident to a distracted driver. Sue me for the one degree of separation.
Have people really lost sight of liberty so much?
If you want to play angry birds while driving on a closed course or the middle of the desert, go right ahead. It's not a significant infringement of your personal liberties to say that while you're on public highways and operating a motor vehicle that you should act in a manner that doesn't risk the lives of the people next to you for your own entertainment.
Or do they just not think things like this through?
You're defending the notion of adding entertainment in an unnecessary and potentially dangerous manner to cars that will be driving on public roads and putting it under the vise of a liberty issue. I'll take the hit on the "not thinking things through" schtick once you can explain to me how this benefits anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you thought through the enforcement regime required to ensure people don't have "unapproved" applications loaded on their car computer?
Yes, and it's called "what's worked for the past century: don't run apps on your dashboard at all". Wanna add a trip computer or GPS stats on there? Fine, I'm down with that. But there's no conceivable reason to add games to a dashboard as it does nothing whatsoever to provide better performance to the vehicle or the driver. Just because something is possible doesn't make it a good idea.
So you're saying we can't run apps ("don't run apps on your dashboard"), but we can run apps ("a trip computer or GPS stats on there? Fine"), implying either you haven't "thought through the enforcement regime required", or you have, but realize 'forbid users to execute their own code on their own computer' will be unpopular on /., where we still care about (certain) freedoms, and elected to sweep it under the rug. So, dense or dishonest... that's all I see.
Can't refute me, since GP's contradiction doesn't make sense without the assumption of stupidity or dishonesty?
No trouble, you can sure as hell mod me down. I love /.!
I think the modders were just waiting for you to post an argument with some kind of inherent logic and cohesion before bothering with a reply. The other guy took the time to address each of your points rationally, and we're waiting for you to the same, tough guy AC.
Re: (Score:3)
How about, mind your own damn business until it actually affects you?
Because we have a reasonable expectation that it WILL affect us. With irrevocable consequences. You've already acknowledged that someone who "may have to pay for the consequences" should have a say in what is allowed behavior:
let them work out what they're allowed to do with their insurance company that may have to pay for the consequences
The potential consequence to the insurance company is a cash payout. The potential consequence to me is pain, death, or dismemberment. In both cases they are potential consequences. No one disputes that. But they are consequences that have happened before, and we have a reasonable e
Re: (Score:2)
We DON'T hold people responsible. Once upon a time, we did [theatlanticcities.com]. Nowadays, you can "lose control" and escape prosecution [tucsonbikelawyer.com], even when your mistake kills people.
And speaking as someone who was once left unconscious in a ditch by a hit-and-run driver, it HAS affected me. Given personal experience with this alleged "responsibility", I find that talk is cheap -- when responsibility matters, it is often lacking.
Re:Why should you have a say? (Score:5, Insightful)
You must not drive apparently. The majority of people are barely capable of driving without any distractions. I'm all for the Libertarian idealism but too many slack jawed mouth breathers ruined it. Sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
Difference between proactive and reactive, I guess. Proactive is generally better because, really, how much help would you be after you're dead in getting justice from the stupid? The dumb mass is everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither the court nor the insurance company can raise your victims from the dead. It's too late then.
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you think what you want people do to with their cars is any of your business, as long as it doesn't involve hurting you or someone else?
You can't make a statement like this without also defending the idea that "Smartphone-centric in-vehicle infotainment (IVI) systems" won't involve hurting yourself or someone else.
Punish them if they do something stupid and cause a traffic accident... let them work out what they're allowed to do with their insurance company that may have to pay for the consequences
A) Driving is a privelege, not a right.
B) Your statement accepts that the law can force you to purchase car insurance. Why are other restrictions on driving so much more onerous?
Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
In the case of a glancing collision, spinnout, etc you can easily get thrown around the cab by forces considerably stronger than you could hope to resist. A seatbelt will keep you in place behind the wheel where you still have a some control over your still-moving vehicle and can hopefully bring it to a stop without any secondary collisions. An only slightly weaker argument applies to front-seat passengers, since they can easily be thrown into your lap severely impairing your control. Rear seat passengers on the other hand are more a case of "think of the children" since any collision which manages to throw them into the front seat will likely have stopped the car anyway. Though, now that I think about it, without seatbelts children are far more likely to be clambering around the back of the car distracting you, or perched between the front seats so they can see out the windshield (and get thrown around the cab), so there's might be some validity to it after all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you're studying the effects of doing X, getting the subjects to do X is pretty much a prerequisite.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How fucking stupid is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the Germans can exhibit a bit of self control behind the wheel while driving?
So the story goes with VW's engineers that they kept getting complaints from the American dealers that their cars lacked cup holders. The engineers couldn't fathom why you would want a cup of anything while driving. So they determined it was just to store something while driving to a destination. So for the Mk3 Golf/Jetta we got cup holders... That will hold exactly a 12 floz can. Anything larger won't fit.
The Germans have a complete different mentality about driving that most Americans don't get. I got to visit a while ago for a week and when you're doing 200 kph you don't have time for a cell phone. The autobahn gently twists and turns unlike some American highways which you could write your biography if the car's aligned.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope it would be appropriate to denote the observation that your comment presents a fine example of common ethnography.
To return to the common vernacular, however: Lyk, geez you mean they don't do it like us?
(cough cough lol and such)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Germans have a complete different mentality about driving that most Americans don't get. I got to visit a while ago for a week and when you're doing 200 kph you don't have time for a cell phone. The autobahn gently twists and turns unlike some American highways which you could write your biography if the car's aligned.
After spending a week on the road in germany recently, this makes absolute sense to me.
In germany I activated cruise control whenever possible, because I felt like I needed to keep my eyes on the road, I didn't want to look at my speed when I could be looking ahead or in my mirrors instead. On the autobahn the speeds are so fast (not just my speeds, but also the speeds of traffic around me) and lanes so narrow I was on a razor's edge the whole time, in the city the traffic and streets and pedestrians were t
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe the Germans can exhibit a bit of self control behind the wheel while driving?
I think it is more the fact that the USA is a much, much larger market than Germany. Cars are designed to sell, so they need to be built with things that will sell in their largest markets - currently China and the USA.
Apropos cupholders: on the E46 BMW (3-series cars circa 2002) there were cupholders on the American cars, but none in the German/European versions. That way they sold more cars in the USA, but didn't annoy people and lose sales in Germany The smartphone app ability may not be built in worl
Re:How fucking stupid is this? (Score:5, Funny)
Distracted morons are one reason why I drive full-size trucks with ugly accessories such as liftgates and tow-truck bumpers.
Besides using them for their intended purpose, such add-ons get driver attention. Flat black Rustoleum FTW!
I also keep my triball Reese hitch installed as a standoff. Anyone who rear-ends me deserves to lose a radiator, not just a bumper cover.
Re:How fucking stupid is this? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm surprised there isn't yet a reply to this along the lines of "You drive a truck, ergo you're an asshole and a bully as a driver." I see that all the time, especially in the context of a conversation about driving etiquette.
I drive a full-size truck myself, and am a very polite driver. The nice thing about my truck is it forces people around me to be polite as well.
Re: (Score:3)
I live in Seattle, and the only non-polite drivers that I regularly encounter are in Escalades, Navigators, Hummers, and (for some reason) Mustangs. Even Beemer drivers, who tend to be assholes in real life, tend to be all right here.
I grew up
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, I will bite...
The OP showed that his reasons for driving a truck were pretty selfish (larger vehicle = more damage to environment and roadways), and misguided (safety rating of large vehicles tend to be worse than low fuel consumption compacts, such as the VW Golf, although this is changing).
I don't care how polite you say you are, if you drive a vehicle that is unnecessarily large and obstruct my view of the road ahead as a result (I am talking city driving here) then I will think of you accordingly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Had a woman on her phone blow through a stop sign just the other day and I nearly broadsided her. She had three kids in the car.
Re: (Score:2)
Darwin would've had a field day!
Applicants tested for smartphone smarts (Score:2)
Filmed while driving and texting [failblog.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That's a fine video.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So... what? You're advocating seatbelts on a motorcycle? Yeah, I can see that being a big win. I have always wanted to have my motorcycle slide out from underneath me just to be dragged down the highway by several hundred pounds of metal and finally crushed against the center median by it. Believe me the last thing you want is to be strapped to a motorcycle!
As for safety gear... yeah. In terms of personal risk I think that motorcycles are a very different beast from cars. Riding a bike takes a level of conc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Again I guess it depends a lot on your perspective. On a motorcycle the goal is avoidance; avoidance of collisions and situations in which a collision may happen. Motorcycles are far more maneuverable than a car and thus a well trained rider (which SHOULD be most, but I will concede probably isn't) should be able to avoid most problems. I know that in about a decade of riding I have had some minor accidents but that two of them were the result of me avoiding a potentially more hazardous situation (car lost
Re: (Score:2)
Can't decide if I agree or disagree. We are generally in the same insurance pools, it will generally save us money (and cut down on the societal awfulness of car crash deaths) if more people wore seat belts.
On the other hand, in the grand scheme of causes-and-numbers-of-death, it's just not that big a deal. The simple act of driving the car instead of walking, biking, or even just standing on a subway or bus (just plain sitting turns out to be bad for us [nytimes.com]) kills more people by far. One estimate of the ris
Re: (Score:2)
I think this is screen sharing, so not the same.
Re: (Score:2)
That person playing video games in his Lincoln Navigator is going to crush some poor innocent person in their Prius.
So it will weed out the idiots who buy small cars.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it's time to revive the old idea of the spike on the steering wheel.
Re: (Score:2)
Community leaders may themselves be able to inspire sense of personal responsibility in a community
Like Oprah and immunization?
What kind of leaders do you have in mind? Politicians? Priests? I'm afraid the people most folks look up to for inspiration these days are talk show hosts, actors, singers and other celebrities. I have a hard time believing in "the plain sense of reason" in most people. This does in fact include myself at times. I knew it was wrong and maybe dangerous but still used the phone and performed other even more unsafe driving activities.
Still see regulations not as a substitute for
Re: (Score:2)
I don't completely understand it, but there seems to be a segment of society that believes that they or whatever authority they appeal to should control what/how people live or do any time something new or different comes down the pike -- just look at the story phrasing:
"...but is it really a good idea to let people run smartphone apps from their dashboard monitor? I guess for navigation you could run your favorite map-app there, but there is nothing to stop people from running other apps on their dashboard